Allow For vs. Allow

We want to allow good things.
We want to allow for unwanted things.

The new gun will be idiotproof to allow safer use
The new gun will be idiotproof to allow for idiots.

Head home early to allow ample time.
Head home early to allow for traffic.

Parsing a Press Release: Adobe

Take it away Matt Gemmell:

Adobe announced today that they won’t be making any more versions of Flash Player for mobile devices, but as usual for large companies, you have to work hard to decipher what they’ve said.

Confusing, marketing-voiced corporate communication is a terrible problem in this industry, and it’s damaging to the companies themselves. Adobe’s press release (that’s what it essentially is, even though it’s nominally a blog post) sounds sterile, aloof, disconnected and tentative—perhaps even with a note of desperation. I decided to rewrite it.

Attention New York Times Headline Writers: Don't Sacrifice Grammar for Cuteness

A guest post from Paul Stregevsky.

As a stickler for clear antecedents, I fault this headline, from the New York Times: "Iowa, the Early Decider, Still Hasn't."

I would even fault, "Iowa, the Earliest State to Decide, Still Hasn't." Still hasn't decide? Um, no. There is but one legitimate antecedent: "decided." And since readers would find it awkward to read "Iowa, the Earliest State to Have Decided, Still Hasn't," the headline writer must abandon the conceit and try again.

Mind you, I oppose constructions like this one not because they're illogical (though they are), but because they force readers to mentally correct the grammatical error.

Addendum: Actually, this could work: "Iowa, the Early State to Decide, Still Can't."

Addendum (1/4/2012): I e-mailed this post to Philip Corbett, the Times's associate managing editor for standards who writes the After Deadline blog. He's given me permission to publish his reply:

I agree in general that headlines should be grammatical. But given the constraints of the form, I think it's reasonable on occasion to expect the reader to make a bit more of a syntactical leap than might be demanded in other contexts. (Here, I suspect the headline writer was also alluding to President Bush's famous description of himself as "the decider," another argument for allowing the construction.)

What do you think?

Parsing a Press Release: Best Buy

Take it away Larry Downes:

The company issued a statement that read: “Due to overwhelming demand of hot product offerings on BestBuy.com during the November and December time period, we have encountered a situation that has affected redemption of some of our customers’ online orders.”

Let’s parse that sentence for a moment. The company “encountered a situation”—that is, it was a passive victim of an external problem it couldn’t control, in this case, customers daring to order products it acknowledges were “hot” buys. This happened, inconveniently for Best Buy, during “the November and December period,” that is, the only months that matter to a retailer. For obvious reasons, the statement ties itself in knots trying to avoid mentioning that the “situation” occurred during the holidays.

The situation that Best Buy “encountered” has “affected redemption” of some orders. Best Buy doesn’t fill online orders, it seems. Rather, customers “redeem” them. So it’s the customers, not Best Buy, who have the problem. And those customers haven’t been left hanging; they’ve only been “affected” in efforts to “redeem” their orders. It’s not as if the company did anything wrong, or, indeed, anything at all.

It’s all so passive. It’s also a transparent and truly feeble pack of lies. Here’s what the honest and appropriate release would have said: “Due to poor inventory management and sales forecasting of the most popular products during our key sales season, we can’t fill orders we promised to fill weeks ago in time for Christmas.”

There’s a little more to the Best Buy’s press release: “We are very sorry for the inconvenience this has caused, and we have notified the affected customers.”

Again, note the use of the passive voice—“this” refers to the “situation” that Best Buy “encountered.” The “situation,” not Best Buy’s poor operations, “has caused” inconvenience to customers. It’s not something Best Buy did wrong. It’s like they’re reporting the weather, something utterly out of their control about which the company is a mere observer. They’ve “notified the affected customers” despite, it seems, no sense of obligation to do so, let alone to find a solution to a problem entirely of the company’s own creation. How sorry are they, do you think?

Again, here’s my rewrite: “Three days before Christmas, too late for the customers to make alternative arrangements, we are just now letting our would-be customers know. We have no excuse for such amateur behavior.”

Don't Use a Noun When There's a Verb

Example #1: Putin’s last assignment for the spy agency was conducting surveillance on students at Leningrad State University. [NYT]

Revision #1: Putin’s last assignment for the spy agency was surveiling students at Leningrad State University.

Example #2: House G.O.P. Leaders Agree to Extension of Payroll Tax Cut [NYT]

Revision #2: House G.O.P. Leaders Agree to Extend Payroll Tax Cut

Addendum (1/20/2012):

Example #3: Our growth over the past five years is a testament to the continued commitment of our clients.

Revision #3: Our growth over the past five years testifies to continued commitment of our clients.

Addendum (1/28/2012):

Example #4: Our success is dependent on our people.

Revision #4: Our success depends on our people.

When Not to Use an Exclamation Point

A member of a language ListServ to which I subscribe recently asked for guidance on exclamation marks. Two replies were particularly noteworthy:

1. In letters and most other longish communications, the message should speak for itself, with no need for embellishment. However, where space is limited, so that the wording alone cannot convey the message, such as in tweets, I suppose an exclamation point would be ok. But think of it this way: do you want to come across like a teenage girl? If so, use lots of "!!!"s Otherwise, make your message powerful wnough to do the job. IMHO!!!

2. From the Associated Press Stylebook:

• Use the mark to express a high degree of surprise, incredulity or other strong emotion.
• Use a comma after mild interjections. End mildly exclamatory sentences with a period. lace the mark inside quotation marks when it is part of the quoted material: “How wonderful!” he exclaimed. “Never!” she shouted.
• Place the mark outside quotation marks when it is not part of the quoted material: I hated reading Spenser’s “Faerie Queene”!
• Do not use a comma or a period after the exclamation mark:
• Wrong: “Halt!”, the corporal cried.
• Right:  “Halt!” the corporal cried.

disambiguate

disambiguate (v): to establish a single semantic or grammatical interpretation for

Here at Sprachgefuhl, we do a lot of disambiguating.

Hanukkah. Chanukah. Hannukah

According to Tim Newcomb of Time.com, the proper spelling of the Jewish Christmas is "a matter of preference and mass appeal."

Hanukkah is the most widely used of the choices, while Chanukah is the second most-often-used spelling and the favorite of traditionalists.

flyspeck

flyspeck (v): to scrutinize details

Evans said that Gingrich’s attorneys and accountants flyspecked every transaction to make sure that it was accounted for properly."

Newt Gingrich Inc. [Washington Post]

"most important," or "most importantly"?

Q. Which is correct? “Most important, you enable your students to pursue their passions” or “Most importantly, you enable your students to pursue their passions.”

A. Although the second version is considered incorrect by many sticklers, and the first one sounds wrong to people who don’t know better, they are both correct.

New Questions and Answers [Chicago Manual of Style Online]

TIME Magazine? Time Magazine? Time magazine?

Q. Can you please confirm the correct spelling of “TIME magazine”? CMOS 8.169 has Time magazine. However, TIME customer service tells me that TIME Magazine is correct. I think “magazine” should be lowercased, since it does not appear anywhere on the cover, and I do not think it is part of the official name of the magazine, even though they capitalize it on their website. What do you think?

A. We’re sticking with Time magazine. One of the best things about having a style guide is not having to phone every organization in a document and talk to customer service; instead, we use the style manual to present titles consistently. Even if you were to check the periodical itself, you might find that the magazine cover has one spelling (TIME) but the copyright information has another (Time) and yet another is used in running text (Time). And you know for sure that if you phoned again, a different rep would give you a different answer.

New Questions and Answers [Chicago Manual of Style Online]

condomplate

condomplate (v): to contemplate whether to use a condom in the heat of sex

A hard time opening a rubber's wrapper induces condomplating.

Condomplate [Urban Dictionary]

Linguists vs. Lexicographers: Why Stylebooks Should Not Be Dictionaries

Should the way people do speak dictate the way people should speak?

To wit: Should a stylebook (such as the MLA Handbook and the Chicago Manual of Style) take its cues from a dictionary, which records words as they’re used, or should a dictionary take its cues from a stylebook, which takes positions on how words ought to be used?

The former method constitutes the status quo: both MLA and Chicago follow Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary. The problem is, Merriam-Webster doesn’t make recommendations; it records the most common spellings, not which spellings are necessarily correct.

Chicago contends that spelling issues such as capitalization, hyphenation, and compound words are for each writer to decide. Yet it offers no criteria by which writers can make these decisions. Should we use the word’s prestige? How it was first written? Its present-day connotation? Its frequency of usage?

Without a rule, or at least a rule of thumb, a writer is left to weigh each word on its own, capitalizing “Ivy League” but not “website”; unhyphenating “email” but not “e-book”; merging “smart” and “phone” but not “health care.”

But surely one of the purposes of stylebooks is to standardize such inconsistencies—to bring order to the chaos of “style.” Indeed, what makes stylebooks like Fowler’s and Strunk and White’s so important is that dictionaries are not the final word on semantics. That’s what stylebooks are for: to prescribe.

There’s a phrase for those charged with prescribing who instead parrot those charged with describing: dereliction of duty.

Good Writing Is Good Writing

Regardless of your audience or publication, good writing is good writing. Whether you’re writing a children’s book or an op-ed, your words should bristle with energy and elegance. Whether you’re writing a letter of recommendation or an insurance policy, your words should be clear and crisp. Good writing is good writing.

Are Americans of Latin American descent "Latinos" or "Hispanics"?

According to an internal memo from the Los Angeles Times, they're "Latinos," which is the umbrella term for Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, and others from the Spanish-speaking lands or cultures of Latin America. The memo concludes, "Latino should be used in nearly all contexts; the exceptions ... must truly be exceptional."

Here's the memo, which is addressed to Times copy editors:

We have updated our rule on the use of Latino to reflect more accurately what the editors of the 1995 Times stylebook intended: that the term in virtually all cases is the appropriate choice over Hispanic, in keeping with the practices and sensibilities of residents of our region.

We offer this combined new listing in place of two separate and occasionally confusing former entries:

Latino, Hispanic: Latino is the umbrella term for people in the United States of Latin American descent. It refers to Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans and others from the Spanish-speaking lands or cultures of Latin America. A Latino woman is a Latina. It is preferable to say that an individual is Mexican American, of Salvadoran descent and so forth, instead of using the umbrella term.

Keep in mind that Latino is an ethnic group, not a race category. Latinos may be of any race: white, black, Native American, Asian, mestizo, etc. Some speak Spanish; some don't. Some are U.S. born; others are immigrants.

Note: Hispanic is acceptable in quotes or in proper names. The U.S. Census Bureau uses terms such as "Hispanic or Latino" and "non-Hispanic or Latino" in its survey questions on ethnicity and race. Stories and graphics based on census information are allowed to use that language when it is essential to explain methodology, but we should otherwise use Latino to describe the people in question.

In describing the old entries as "occasionally confusing," we mean especially every 10 years upon the release of fresh census data. It was easy to see why many of us interpreted the old rules as not only an invitation to use Hispanic but, in census stories, a requirement to do so. The old entry on Hispanic said, in part, "Use Hispanic only in quotes, in proper names or reports based on census data."

So, to be clear: Latino should be used in nearly all contexts; the exceptions, as described in the revised entry, must truly be exceptional. The online stylebook has been updated accordingly.

"Couple" vs. "Couple Of"

I recently e-mailed Merriam-Webster's Language Research Service the following question. Associate Editor, Neil S. Serven, replied as follows.

Q: Is it grammatically incorrect to say "a couple hours" instead of "a couple of hours"?

A: Both expressions are standard, though “a couple hours” is considered to be more informal. As such, couple is entered in the dictionary as both a noun and an adjective. The excerpt below from Merriam-Webster’s Concise Dictionary of English Usage discusses the use of couple as an adjective.

couple, adjective.
While the commentators were worrying whether the noun couple could be used to mean simply "two" and whether it could mean "a few" (see COUPLE, noun), the word itself was following the path of development that dozen had taken centuries earlier—dropping its following of and being used like an adjective. We are not sure when this process began in speech, but we begin to find written evidence in the 1920s. Sinclair Lewis heard it in the dictation of George W. Babbitt:

... all my experience indicates he is all right, means to do business, looked into his financial record which is fine--that sentence seems to be a little balled up, Miss McGoun; make a couple sentences out of it if you have to—Sinclair Lewis, Babbitt, 1922

Lewis was not the only one to use it:

... where the land rises to a couple or three or four feet—W. H. Hudson, Far Away and Long Ago, 1924
... in the phrases a couple peaches, a couple of peaches, only two should be meant—Krapp 1927

G. P. Krapp is the first commentator to mention the construction, but he evidently saw nothing wrong with it. A decade later, however, it was thought to be wrong:

couple. Not an adj.; must be followed by "of" and preceded by article—Muriel B. Carr &} John W. Clark, An A B C of Idiom and Diction, 1937

Of all the subsequent commentators who have disapproved the omission of of, Evans 1957 has the most interesting observation. While insisting that standard English requires of between couple and a following noun, he points out that the of is omitted before a degree word such as more or less. And indeed this construction is found in standard English:

We can end this chapter by looking at a couple more examples of Middle English writing—Charles Barber, The Flux of Language, 1965
... middle-aged men expecting a couple more promotions—Peter Preston, Punch, 28 Nov. 1973

These examples are all British; the construction is explicitly recognized by a recent British dictionary, Longman 1984. The construction occurs in American English too:

... till they had taken a couple more first-class lickings—Elmer Davis, But We Were Born Free, 1954

But American English usage seems to have been influenced by the number of commentators stressing the necessity of of. The result is the occasional " a couple of more":

... a couple of more wins from Jim Palmer—Jim Kaplan, Sports Illustrated, 10 Apr. 1978

Nickles 1974 refers to this construction as a "garble" and opines that it results from confusion of a couple of with some such construction as a few more; he fails to recognize the standard a couple more. Theodore Bernstein seems to have encountered the construction, too; in a June 1967 Winners & Sinners he quotes Evans with a measure of approval, but questions whether all degree words fit the pattern. He comes a cropper by confusing Evans's "degree words" with ordinary adjectives. Bernstein was unable to find any specific comment in usage books on "a couple of more" and concludes therefore that it is not wrong, though "ungraceful." If you find it ungraceful also and do not care to omit the of before more, you can put the more after the noun instead; the example above would become "a couple of wins more from Jim Palmer." Bernstein also notes that when more is promoted to pronoun by omission of the following noun, of is not used, as in "... I think I'll have a couple more."

But we have strayed from the red-blooded, 100-percent-American adjective before a plural noun that Sinclair Lewis heard in the speech of the middle-class Middle West. The usage is apparently not found in British English. Here are a few American ones:

The first couple chapters are pretty good—E. B. White, letter, 26 Oct. 1959
So let's start with a couple samples—Quinn 1980

Afterward, I met Mark Mullaney upstairs for a couple beers—Ahmad Rashad, Sports Illustrated, 25 Oct. 1982

... though Mr. Shaw himself still operated a couple wagons for hire—Garrison Keillor, Lake Wobegon Days, 1985

This construction seems well established in American English. Everyone who comments knows it to be common in speech. It is now quite common in general prose, but we have seldom found it in prose that aspires to formality and elegance. Its two most frequent uses are with periods of time and with number words like dozen, hundred, and thousand:

... have surfaced dramatically in the last couple weeks—James P. Gannon, Wall Street Jour., 16 Oct. 1970

A couple thousand cases of liquor—Wall Street Jour., 14 July 1969

To recapitulate: a couple without of seems to have begun being used like a few and a dozen in the 1920s. It is firmly established in American speech and in general writing (though not the more elevated varieties) when it is used directly before a plural noun or a number word. Before more, a couple is used without of in both British and American English and in this context is often preferred even by American commentators.

Do You Love Grammar?

Then Christopher Johnson, author of the new book, Microstyle: The Art of Writing Little, has your number:

“If you meet someone who claims to ‘love grammar,’ chances are they mean they love ‘correct’ grammar and enjoy pointing out other people’s mistakes.”

What's Wrong With This Sentence?

In his Sunday column, Tom Friedman made an elementary grammar mistake: He wrote "is" instead of "are."

Where have all the adults in this party gone? Where is Dick Lugar, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Colin Powell, Hank Paulson and Big Business?

Had he used periods instead of commas, then "is" would have been right.

Koufax

Koufax [Sandy Koufax, the Jewish Hall of Fame pitcher, sat out the first game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur] (v): to forgo an important sporting event because it coincides with a religious holiday

In the first episode of season eight of Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry accuses Marty, a newly observant Jew, of "Koufaxing us" because Marty refuses to play in the golf tournament because it falls on the Sabbath.

When You Use "Exceed" in a Positive Way, Say "Surpass"

This morning, a colleague referred me to the following sentence:

"We’ve earned accolades from our clients as well as industry recognition for creative solutions and marketing strategies that exceed our clients’ expectations."

He argues that exceed isn't the best word here. "Whenever someone uses exceed to mean 'go beyond in a good way,' I urge him to change it to surpass. Exceed often has a pejorative connotation: 'He was cited for exceeding the speed limit,' or 'You've exceeded your month's bandwidth.' But surpass is always positive."

This sounds right, connotatively if not necessarily denotatively.

skinback

skinback [journalistic slang for peeling back your skin and feeling the pain]: retraction of the premise of an article

In his Reuters column yesterday, "How I Misread News Corp.'s Taxes," David Cay Johnston wrote, "For the first time in my 45-year-old career I am writing a skinback ... I will do all I can to make sure everyone who has read or heard secondary reports based on my column also learns the facts and would appreciate the help of readers in that cause."

See also: In 2008, Jack Shakfer explained another journalistic term, "reverse ferret."

skunkworks

What does it take to scare Google? In 2009, Microsoft's launch of Bing lit a fuse under the search giant. In his recent book, In the Plex, Steven Levy explains:

The search team set up a war room, hurriedly launching an effort dubbed the skunkworks. (That appellation, first used at Lockheed aircraft during World War II, is a generic term for an off-the-books engineering effort that operates outside a company's stifling bureaucracy.)

Refining the definition, I'd say "skunkworks" is a secret effort that seeks to maximize innovation by operating outside a company's stifling bureaucracy.

Yet when trying to use the word in a sentence, I wasn't sure whether it was a noun or adjective. Is it a "skunkworks project," or just a "skunkworks"? Merriam-Webster's dictionary, which lists "Skunk Works" as a "service mark," didn't provide guidance, so I e-mailed its language research service. Trademark Editor, Daniel Brandon, replied as follows:

The full entry for “Skunk Works” on our Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary is:

Skunk Works service mark — used for research and development services

The important thing to note here is the function label, “service mark.” This means that this term is not strictly speaking a noun, adjective, or any other part of speech. It is instead a registered service mark with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These are much like trademarks (which we treat in the dictionary in the same way), only it has slightly different uses and conditions.

As such, we are obliged to enter it only as the mark specifies. This is why we do not show “skunkworks,” as a lower-case closed compound.

So, I'd say that "skunkworks" may be used as an adjective or noun:

I do my best work in a skunkworks environment; skunkworks are my favorite projects.

pre-friending

pre-friending: friending someone online who you want to meet offline

Have you ever pre-friended someone?

logomachy

logomachy: a dispute about words

Perhaps "logomachy" would be a better title for this blog than "sprachgefuhl." What do you think?

Videos: 4 Essential Tips for Writing in Plain Language

Recently, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (ICE) produced a video series on plain language. Starring ICE Web Content Editor, Kathryn Catania, who also co-chairs the Plain Language Action and Information Network, the digital shorts are just what they should be: brief, catchy, and handy.

Since I couldn't find them on YouTube, I uploaded them there myself.

Proofreading


Active Voice


Tables


Acronyms and Abbreviations

Restrictive Apposition

In 2000, I asked the Modern Language Association the following question. I received the following reply.

Q: The second example sentence in MLA 5.49 (Appositives) reads:

Jeanne DeLor dedicated the book to her only sister, Margaret.

But the third rule of Strunk and White’s Elements of Style says that “no comma . . . should sepa-rate a noun from a restrictive term of identification.” The examples given are Billy the Kid; the novelist Jane Austen; William the Conqueror; and the poet Sappho.

Why, then, do you put a comma before “Margaret”?

A: Because “sister” in that sentence is not restrictive, since Jeanne had only one sister. If Jeanne had several sisters, and the sentence read,

Jeanne DeLor dedicated the book to her sister Margaret.

then the appositive would be restrictive (that is, essential—rather than parenthetical—to the de-scription), and would not be set off by commas.

See MLA 5.50 for other examples of restrictive apposition.

Be careful where you place the word "either"

Which sentence is correct (my emphasis)?

1. You can either have a small keyboard, like that on a Blackberry Bold 9900, or a slide-out keyboard, which makes for a heavier and thicker phone, like the Samsung Epic.


2. You can have either a small keyboard, like that on a Blackberry Bold 9900, or a slide-out keyboard, which makes for a heavier and thicker phone, like the Samsung Epic.

As the New York Times's standards editor, Philip Corbett, pointed out yesterday, the latter is correct. The reason: Spelled-out, the first sentence means,

You can either have a small keyboard or you can a slide-out keyboard

Spelled-out, the second sentence means,

You can have either a small keyboard or you can have a slide-out keyboard.

In technical terms, as Corbett puts it, "The phrases aren’t parallel—after either we have verb plus object; after or there’s no verb, just the object."

Translated "from the Russian" or "from Russian"?

In 2004, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Associate Editor, Peter A. Sokolowski, replied as follows.

Q: The byline for a recent op-ed in the New York Times says that Pavel Palazhchenko translated Mikhail Gorbachev’s text “from the Russian.” Why is the word “the” necessary? “From Russian” sounds more intuitive.

A: It’s true that the convention of referring to a translated passage as being “from the French” and so on is an oddly un-English pattern. But the best we can do is surmise that a convention is exactly what it is. Since Samuel Johnson used it in his dictionary, it has been traditional to express the idea in this very Latinate manner.

In French, for example, the phrase traduit du russe would literally be rendered as “translated from the Russian.” It may be that a literal translation from back when the modern languages of French and English were being codified has simply carried over and resulted in the phrase as we have it today.

It is possible that the pattern could have been established in English independent of the influence of another language, but I’m afraid that the specifics of when and why are lost to history from our perspective.

————Reply Separator————

Q: Are both “from the Russian” and “from Russian” correct? Which is more prevalent?

A: Both “from Russian” and “from the Russian” are perfectly correct. As near as I can tell from our citations, they are used with roughly equal frequency. This goes for such references to any language.

How does "paraphrasing" differ from "rephrasing" differ from "punning"?

In 2004, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question.Emily A. Brewster from the editorial department replied as follows.

Q: I'd to rephrase the following quotes as follows:

1. “The haves have freedom, the have-nots have not freedom” (Ayn Rand).
2. “It’s the economy, stupid” (Bill Clinton).
3. “Workers of the world unite; you have nothing to lose but your chains” (Karl Marx).

1. The haves have capitalism; the have-nots have not capitalism.
2. It’s capitalism, stupid.
3. Workers of the world unite for capitalism; you have nothing to lose but your hunger.

According to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, paraphrase means “a restatement of a text, passage, or work giving the meaning in another form.” So, if I “paraphrase” something, I must retain its original meaning?

If so, in the above example, do I paraphrase the first quote (since for Rand freedom meant capitalism) but not the second or third (since by “the economy” Clinton did not mean “capitalism” but jobs, and Marx condemned capitalism)? If so, am I “rephrasing” the second and third quotes?

A: You are correct in your understanding that a paraphrase must retain the original meaning of the text being paraphrased. This being the case, your proposed statements are not paraphrases. (If Ayn Rand always equated capitalism with freedom, then your rephrasing of her statement is a paraphrase. However, if she ever used the word “freedom” to mean something other than “capitalism,” your statement would not be an accurate paraphrase; there’s no way to know for certain which sense of “freedom” she was using in the sentence in question—unless, of course, contextual text clarifies which she meant.)

Similarly, I don’t think the word “rephrase” can be accurately used to describe the modifications you’ve made to the statements in question. To phrase something is, according to the definition at sense 1a of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, is to “to express in words or in appropriate or telling terms.” To rephrase something is to express it in words or in appropriate or telling terms again; what is expressed must be the same.

The changes you’ve made to the statements by Rand, Clinton, and Marx are nothing less than major changes, and I don’t think your versions can be accurately attributed to the people who made the original statements.

Regarding the word “rephrasing,” I did not find any evidence in our files of the verb “rephrase” being used as you suggest, that is, to create a version of someone else’s phrase with a word or two that affects the meaning being changed. In rephrasing, the emphasis of a statement may be shifted, but the core meaning is not changed. Most often when something is rephrased, even the emphasis remains the same as in the original.

What you are doing to the phrases by these people is using them as a kind of template for saying something other than what those people said. It’s an effective rhetorical device because the phrases will have a familiar ring to many people, but your phrases are so different in meaning from the originals, that they cannot be accurately attributed to the people who wrote the originals.

How does an "Islamist" differ from a "Muslim"?

In 2003, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Assistant Editor, Jennifer N. Cislo, replied as follows.

Q: My reading tells me that Islamism means a fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, and that an Islamist is a practitioner of Islamism. Is this accurate? If not, how do Islam and Islamism differ?

A: No, an Islamist is not necessarily a Muslim fundamentalist. Islamist means simply “an adherent of Islam.” Thus, an Islamist is a person who follows or believes in Islam. Both Islam and Islamism describe the religious faith of Muslims (which is the practice of Islam). The terms are somewhat interchangeable.

The key here is fundamentalist. Not all Muslims are fundamentalist. Not all Islamists are fundamentalist. Rather, fundamentalist describes a smaller subset of a religious or political group. For instance, there are fundamentalist Christians as well as fundamentalist Muslims within the Christian and Muslim faiths respectively. Fundamentalism, defined in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th edition, as “a movement or attitude stressing strict and literal adherence to a set of basic principles,” describes a subgroup within a faith that is particularly strict and literal in its interpretations of and following of religious doctrine. Fundamentalists are generally a subgroup and, as such, do not represent the majority of those who practice their faith.

————Reply Separator————

Q: In “Fighting Militant Islam, Without Bias,” Daniel Pipes writes, “Islamism differs in many ways from traditional Islam. It is faith turned into ideology, and radical ideology at that.” We therefore, Pipes concludes, “should regularly and publicly distinguish between Islam, the religion of Muslims, and Islamism, the totalitarian ideology.”

A: All the meanings I refer to are based on definitions found in Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, 11th Edition, which cover nicely all the senses of Islamist I found in my research.

The first sense of Islamism refers to the practice of Islam. An Islamist can simply mean one who practices Islam. Muslims also practice Islam. When used in this context, the meaning of Islamist and Muslim is the same. Although there are instances in print in which a Muslim is referred to as radical or militant, primarily the term Muslim is applied to the broad population of believers in Islam and not any small or militant faction.

The second sense of Islamism refers to a reform movement promoting a government and society run by the laws prescribed by Islam. This sense refers to the more radical factions within the Islam faith and an Islamist, in this context, is an adherent of a radical faction of Islam. Some might call this fundamentalist Islam.

We do have evidence for this in our files. But it is noteworthy that the word is almost invariably modified by an adjective, like militant, radical, revolutionary, and fundamentalist. This suggests to me that there is an effort being made to distinguish between the Islamist as a general follower of Islam and the Islamist as radical.

Part of the reason I did not address this issue in my first correspondence is that I hesitate to in any way define or debate at this time in history what a radical, fundamentalist, or any other follower of Islam might or might not be. I can only tell you what our definitions say and reiterate that they reflect how these terms are used according to our research.

The connotation of "proletariat"

In 2003, I asked Al Kelly, at the time the Edgar B. Graves Professor of History at Hamilton College, the following question. He replied as follows.

Q: In The Death of Nature, Carolyn Merchant refers to the “lower orders of society.” Is the proletariat synonymous with these “lower orders,” or does the proletariat carry specifically Marxist connotations?

A: Proletariat usually refers to modern industrial workers. Most in the lower orders of society in the 17th century were peasants.

What does "revert to type" mean?

In 2004, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Neil Serven of the editorial department replied as follows.

Q: In The War over Iraq: Saddam’s Tyranny and America’s Mission, Lawrence F. Kaplan and William Kristol write:

That this was the “message” that Saddam received from U.S. policy became particularly clear during Clinton’s second term. Rhetorically, the administration accepted the goal of régime change in Iraq, and n response to Saddam’s defiance of U.N. weapons inspectors, the White House ordered numerous ostentatious buildups of U.S. forces in the Gulf during 1997 and 1998, accompanies by leaked details about the ominous comings and goings of aircraft carriers and the movement of warplanes. As the pattern evolved, the administration would devise a fig leaf to allow it to back down from the real action these buildups seemed to portend. Then the process would begin anew. An early 1998 confrontation with Saddam exposed the true extent of the Clinton team’s confusion. When Saddam refused to submit to further weapons inspections in late 1997, Clinton vowed that if force was [sic] required this time, the United States would “eliminate” Iraq’s capacity to produce weapons of mass destruction. Yet even as the U.S. buildup proceeded, the administration reverted to type [my emphasis]. In order to insure the elimination of Iraq’s W.M.D. program, would the administration use ground forces? Absolutely not. Could air power destroy Saddam’s weapons? Not really, given that he had buried and hidden so much of his arsenal. So the White House argued itself into a “surgical campaign of only four or five days, which would at most “diminish” Iraqi capabilities.

What does "revert to type" mean?

A: The phrase “revert to type” means to return to a position, habit, or pattern of behavior after temporarily deviating from that pattern. This sense of “type” might best be represented in our Collegiate Dictionary by sense 4a: “qualities common to a number of individuals that distinguish them as an identifiable class.”

A person who is trying to quit smoking, for example, might revert to type if he begins smoking again after laying off cigarettes for a brief time. The person goes back to displaying the qualities that are common to smokers.

In the excerpt you provide, the authors appear to be saying that the administration “reverted to type” by backing down from military action after temporarily increasing the number of forces in the Persian Gulf.

How does "theology" differ from "religion"?

In 2003, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Assistant Editor, Kory L. Stamper, replied as follows.

Q: How does theology differ from religion?

A: In general, “theology” refers to the theory and dogma shaping an overall belief system and metaphysical view of the universe, whereas “religion” refers to a body of sometimes ritualized religious practices as shaped by a particular theology. “Religion” is the earlier word, entering the written lexicon in the 13th century first to refer to the state of monasticism, then a member of a monastic community, then the community itself. It was not until the 14th century that “religion” came to be used of a particular system of worship and faith (as in the 14th century poem Cursor Mundi: In that siquar was in that tun Men of alkin religioun, or “at that time in that town [there] were men of all sorts of religion”).

“Theology” entered the written lexicon in the 14th century meaning “the study of God and of God’s relation to the world” and more broadly, “metaphysics.” The Oxford English Dictionary gives a fantastic explanation of the prehistory of the “metaphysics” sense of “theology” that has some bearing on the earlier senses of the word (with English transliterations of the Greek):

Note. Gr. theologia meant “an account of the gods, or of God (whether legendary or philosophical).” Varro, following the Stoics, distinguished three kinds of theologia, mythical, natural (rational), and civil, the last being the knowledge of the due rites and ceremonies of religion. This threefold division is referred to also by Tertullian and St. Augustine. In Christian Greek, the verb theologein was used = “to speak of as God, to attribute deity to,” whence theologia had the specific sense of “the ascription of a divine nature to Christ,” in contrast to oikonomia the doctrine of his incarnation and human nature. Another patristic Greek use, arising out of the primary sense, was “the account of God, or record of God’s ways, as given in the Bible,” whence the late Greek and medieval Latin use of theologia for the Scriptures themselves. In the 12th c. (1121-40) Abelard applied the term to a philosophical treatment of the doctrines of the Christian religion, which, though at first strongly condemned, became current, and, in this sense, “theologia” came to designate a department of academic study, the textbooks of which were the Bible and the Sentences (from the Fathers) of Peter Lombard. Hence the earliest English use. (The passage from Gower in sense 3 is derived ultimately from Aristotle’s division of the theoretic forms of philosophy into mathematike, physike, theologike the last being what we should call metaphysics, which included his doctrine of the divine nature.)

You can see that “theology,” then, was used in a much more “academic” plane than “religion” was. I believe this connotational distinction between the academic and the practical has carried through into more recent denotational senses of each word; “theology” is often used of a system of theoretical beliefs (senses 2a and b in the online dictionary) whereas “religion” refers to a set of practices and beliefs that theology (sense 2 in the online dictionary) influences. This has also affected later definitions: “religion” has gained the extended sense “a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith” and “theology” has gained the sense “a usually four-year course of specialized religious training in a Roman Catholic major seminary.”

"The Ukraine" or "Ukraine"? "The Netherlands" or "Netherlands"? "The Sudan" or "Sudan"? "The Ayatollah" or "Ayatollah"? "The Reverend" or "Reverend"?

In 2005, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Associate Editor and Composition Manager, Thomas Pitoniak, replied as follows.

Q: According to historian Richard Pipes, “Ukraine is derived from the Slavic word for borderland, which explains why its name was traditionally—and in my opinion correctly—preceded by the, as is the case with ‘the Netherlands’ or ‘the Low Countries.’”

Does this rule, requiring “the” for Ukraine and Netherlands, hold for “ayatollah,” as in the Ayatollah Khomeini; “reverend,” as in the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr; or “Sudan”?

A: The use of “the” before terms like “reverend” is conventional in formal address.

“Reverend” started out as an adjective, and as is the case with “honorable” before a judge’s name, an article “the” before something like “the Reverend John Smith” is describing the whole person—title and name, not just the descriptive noun before the name. An example of the latter would be, “the quarterback Tom Brady.” In that case “quarterback” is a noun in attribution, and so “the” really belongs to that noun. If you want to think of articles and nouns as isolated binary pairs, then that pair, “the quarterback,” is indeed similar to “the Ukraine” in your account. But “the reverend” is not.

I wouldn’t use “the” before “Ayatollah,” but with “Sudan” it is common to do so.

How does "patriotism" differ from "nationalism"?

Patriotism means “love for or devotion to one’s country.”

Nationalism means “loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially: a sense of national consciousness exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations or supranational groups.”

Thus, a patriot need not be a nationalist, but a nationalist is necessarily a patriot.

How do “oppressive” and “repressive” differ?

In 2002, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Kory L. Stamper replied as follows.

Q: How do “oppressive” and “repressive” differ?

A: “Oppressive” and “repressive” each can refer to keeping something from acting, but each word has a very different meaning. “Oppressive” in that sense implies a weighing down or a burdening of someone or something by an external force. “Repressive,” on the other hand, refers to subduing something using either external force or internal control.

Each word also has meanings that are not shared: “oppressive” also means “tyrannical” and “overpowering or depressing the spirits”; “repressive” has specialized applications in psychology and developmental studies that “oppressive” do not.

How does "nation-state" differ from "nation"?

A “nation-state” contains one nationality, whereas a “nation” contains multiple nationalities.

“Nationality” means a people having a “common origin, tradition, and language.”

So, given that America is, as JFK said, a nation “of immigrants,” or a melting pot, the United States is a “nation.”

How do “metaphysics” and “ontology” differ?

In 2001, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Emily Arsenault from the editorial department replied as follows.

Q: How do “metaphysics” and “ontology” differ?

A: Their entries from Collegiate Encyclopedia might help:

ontology: Theory of being as such. Ontology is synonymous with metaphysics as defined by Aristotle, but because metaphysics came to include other studies (including philosophical cosmology and rational psychology), ontology has become the preferred term for the study of being. In the eighteenth century, C. Wolff understood ontology as a deductive discipline leading to necessary truths about the essence of things. Wolff’s successor, I. Kant, presented influential refutations of ontology as a purported system of knowledge. Ontology against became important in the twentieth century, notably among students of phenomenology and existentialism, particularly M. Heidegger.

metaphysics: Branch of philosophy whose object is to determine the real nature of things, to determine the meaning, structure, and principles of whatever is insofar as it is. In the history of Western philosophy, metaphysics has been understood as:

1. an inquiry into what sorts or basic kinds of things (e.g., the mental and physical) exist
2. the science of reality as opposed to appearance
3. the study of the world as a whole
4. a theory of first principles

The term means literally “what comes after physics,” and was used to refer to the contents of Aristotle’s treatise on what he himself called “first philosophy.” Aristotle had distinguished two tasks for the philosopher: to investigate the nature of the properties of what exists in the natural, or sensible, world, and to explore the characteristics of “being as such’ and inquire into the character of “the substance that is free from movement,” the unmoved mover. The first constituted “second philosophy” and was carried out primarily in his Physics; the second, which he also called “theology” (because God was the unmoved mover), is discussed in his Metaphysics.

Is "Londonistan" pejorative?

In 2005, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Associate Editor, Kory Stamper, replied as follows.

Q: In 2003, Daniel Pipes, an American expert on the Middle East, titled a post on his blog, “Londonistan Follies.” In 2005, Time magazine wrote, “In the years before Sept. 11, 2001, French authorities despaired at what they claimed was the tendency of the British authorities to turn a blind eye to events in ‘Londonistan.’” Also in 2005, historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote in National Review Online, “Its capital was dubbed Londonistan for its hospitality to Muslims across the globe.”

From these examples, it seems that Londonistan is pejorative, meaning that Britain is too hospitable to militant Muslims. Is this accurate, and do you plan to include the word, or perhaps the “-istan” suffix, in the next edition of your dictionary?

A: “Londonistan” is a relatively new coinage that still looks to be predominantly British. According to the evidence I have on hand, it dates back to 2001 and was supposedly coined by French counterterrorism officials who sneered at the British claim that human rights laws prohibited them from arresting suspected militants and al Qaeda lieutenants without evidence of a crime having been committed.

At this point, we don’t have enough evidence of either “Londonistan” or the suffixal “-istan” to merit entry into any of our dictionaries. Given more time and sustained usage, it may be a good candidate for future entry.

anti-Semitism

In 2002, I asked Merriam-Webster about the history of the word “anti-Semitism.” I received the following reply.

Though no English dictionary I have looked in attributes this word to another language, a little investigation makes it clear that English anti–Semitism, anti–Semite, anti–Semitic, etc., as well as corresponding terms in other European languages (French anti-sémitisme, Russian antisemitizm, etc.), are all borrowings from German Antisemitismus, Antisemit, and antisemitisch, which first became widely current in Germany in the fall of 1879.

To understand how this word arose we have to look more generally at the history of prejudice against Jews in Western Europe. Up until the late 18th century anti–Jewish feeling was grounded mainly on perceptions of Jews as an unconvertible religious minority, the only non- Christians in a monochromatically Christian society. A number of developments led to fundamental changes in this view. The German historian A.L. Schlözer and the Biblical scholar J.G. Eichhorn began to use Semit “Semite” and semitisch “Semitic,” based on Biblical references to the progeny of Shem, as precise terms defining Semites as a group of ancient and modern peoples, and Semitic as a family of languages that included Hebrew and Arabic. Later, scholars drew a sharp distinction between the Semites and the Arians (German Arier), who were thought to be the ancestors of the Indo-European-speaking peoples of Europe. The Jews came to be regarded as descendants of one branch of the Semites, and hence a people or nation rather than a religious minority. It was typical of nineteenth-century Romantic conceptualizations of world history to attribute a Geist, or intellectual and cultural essence, to every nation. Not surprisingly, the pre-modern stereotype of the Jew as a usurer preoccupied with financial gain was assigned to Jews as a national characteristic. Jewishness as perceived by non–Jews in Western Europe was defined in a completely secular way, and early socialists, in particular Karl Marx—himself of Jewish heritage—identified Jewry with the rise of capitalism. Of course, the culmination of this reevaluation was the notion that someone born of Jewish parents was by definition a Jew, in other words, that Jews constituted not just a nation but a physical race.

It was in this context in the 1870s in Germany that Semit, Semitismus, and Semitentum began to be used as catchwords more or less synonymous with Jude (“Jew”) and Judentum (“Jewry” or “Jewishness”), as a fashionable if inexact way to characterize Jews as a supposed ethnic and racial group. Of course, in the discourse of politicians and publicists within German society ein Semit was unambiguously ein Jude, as Arabs and other Semitic peoples were hardly at issue.

What called forth the term Antisemitismus was a fairly specific set of historical circumstances. With the abolishment of all anti-Jewish legal restrictions in Prussia in 1869, Jews became increasingly prominent in civil society and the target of conservative hostility, as the putative prime exponents of everything considered “modern.” This hostility became more focused after the financial crash of 1873 and the general decline of German liberalism in the early years of the Second Reich. The actual first appearance of antisemitisch and Antisemit is datable to September, 1879, when the Berlin publicist Wilhelm Marr announced a new weekly newspaper with overtly anti-Jewish tendencies. Marr has been credited with coining the terms, but in his own writing he used only antijüdisch “anti–Jewish” until 1880; antisemitisch actually first appears in a Jewish newspaper commenting on the advertisements for Marr’s weekly. In any event, antisemitisch and Antisemit gained rapid currency in the ensuing months. Of course, Antisemitismus was not a term of opprobrium for those German conservatives who wanted to roll back Jewish emancipation, but simply defined a cultural and political movement. The word was quickly picked up by British and French journalists writing about Germany and extended more generally to anti–Jewish ideology. The perception of anti-Semitism as a word denoting something by its very nature reprehensible really only dates from the twentieth century. In English, at least, anti-Semitism works better than anti-Judaism, which seems to imply mere hostility toward a religion.

The entry for Antisemitismus in Paul’s Deutsches Wörterbuch (ninth edition, 1992) cites a much earlier use of German Antisemit, in 1822, with a reference to an article in Zeitschrift für deutsche Wortforschung (volume 8, page 2). Deutsches Wörterbuch also alludes to an occurrence of English anti-Semitic in the work of Thomas Carlyle in 1851 (“anti-Semitic street riots”), with a reference to an article in Zeitschrift für den deutschen Unterricht (volume 24, page 474). Unfortunately, I do not have access to either of these journals here in western Massachusetts, so I am unable to see in what context the words were used. At any rate, even if Antisemit and antisemitisch, with their correspondents in other languages, were not actually first coined in 1879, there is no question that their widespread use began in this year.

Curiously, in 1935 the Reichspropagandaministerum of the National Socialists who put into practice anti-Jewish measures surpassing even the wildest dreams of German conservatives in 1879 attempted to officially phase out antisemitisch in favor of antijüdisch. External political considerations most likely provided some of the motivation for this shift: the foreign policy planners of the Third Reich must have realized that the Arabs of North Africa and the Middle East, chafing under French and British rule, could have been potential allies of Germany in the event of conflict with France and Britain. The continued use of a policy label that seemed to imply hostility toward all Semitic-speaking peoples would not have won the Arabs’ favor.

How does "self-contradictory" differ from "contradiction in terms"?

Sometime in college, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Emily Brewster replied as follows.

Q: In a recent op-ed from the Ayn Rand Institute, Onkar Ghate uses the word “self-contradictory.” In another A.R.I. op-ed, Amy Peikoff uses the phrase “contradiction in terms.”

But don’t both “self-contradictory” and “contradiction in terms” simply mean “contradictory” and “contradiction”? In other words, aren’t “self-contradictory” and “contradiction in terms” tautologous? After all, how can a contradiction be anything other than self-contradictory? And how can a contradiction be anything other than a contradiction “in terms,” i.e., if not in “terms,” then in what?

A: The terms “contradictory” and “self-contradictory” overlap in meaning. While “self-contradictory” applies only when some member or part of something contradicts some other member or part of that thing, “contradictory” applies to such conflicts both inside and outside the single item. Statements, in the plural, for example, cannot be self-contradictory, but they can be contradictory. For this reason, the term “contradictory” usually modifies plural nouns.

The words “in terms” as used in the phrase “contradiction in terms” stress that the discrepancy exists in the words being used. While I won’t rule out greater substance in some instances of the full phrase, I think “contradiction in terms” is generally equivalent to “contradiction.”

How does "selfsame" differ from "same"?

In 2002, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Editorial Assistant, Ben Korzec, replied as follows.

Q: How does “selfsame” differ from “same”?

A: Our dictionary lists “same” and “selfsame” as synonyms, so you can use them interchangeably. Not only do they have the same defining cross-reference to “identical,” but they also have similar senses.

“Same” means “being the one under discussion or already referred to,” and “selfsame” means “being the one mentioned or in question.”

The verbal illustration “left the same day” also illustrates selfsame: “left the selfsame day.”

How does "productivity" differ from "productiveness"?

In 2002, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Kory L. Stamper replied as follows.
Q: How do “productivity” and “productiveness” differ?

A: “Productiveness” is used specifically of the quality or state of being productive, while “productivity” means “the ability or capacity to produce.”

While “productivity” is a synonym of “productiveness,” there is a subtle distinction. “Productiveness” suggests a state already in place or a quality already present, whereas “productivity” suggests the possibility of such a state or quality coming into being.

“Productivity” also tends to have specific business applications that “productiveness” does not. The remainder of the definition in our unabridged dictionary for “productivity” reads:

a: abundance or richness in output

b: the physical output per unit of productive effort

c: the ability of land to produce a given yield of a particular crop

d: the degree of effectiveness of industrial management in utilizing the facilities for production; especially: the effectiveness in utilizing labor and equipment

I also asked this question to my friend, Chris Matthew Sciabarra. He replied as follows.
Productivity is a technical economics term; it usually means, roughly, producing goods that have exchange value. When people talk of maximizing productivity, it usually means producing lots of good quality goods and/or services.

Productiveness is broader. Ayn Rand defined it as “recognition of the fact that productive work is the process by which man’s mind sustains his life.”

How does "prison" differ from "jail" differ from "penitentiary"?

A prison is “a place of confinement especially for lawbreakers; specifically: an institution (as one under state jurisdiction) for confinement of persons convicted of serious crimes.”

A jail is “a place of confinement for persons held in lawful custody; specifically: such a place under the jurisdiction of a local government (as a county) for the confinement of persons awaiting trial or those convicted of minor crimes.”

A penitentiary is “a public institution in which offenders against the law are confined for detention or punishment; specifically: a state or federal prison in the United States.”

Is "Obamacare" pejorative?

A cogent answer from Cato Institute scholar, Ilya Shapiro (from a footnote in his recent law review article, "A Long, Strange Trip: My First Year Challenging the Constitutionality of Obamacare"):

“I use the term because most people colloquially refer to it that way—though those who support it use quotation marks—in large part because it’s much easier to say than ‘PPACA,’ ‘Affordable Care Act,’ or any other more technical term. While thought in some quarters to be pejorative, I’ve never understood how that’s the case (unless said with a sneer, but by that standard anything can be pejorative). Even the leading academic supporters of Obamacare’s constitutionality, such as Yale law professors Akhil Amar and Jack Balkin (who both make cameo appearances toward the end of this article), say ‘Obamacare.’ The one semi-accurate criticism I’ve heard is that the law was mostly written by Congress, not the White House—for which the president got plenty of heat from the Left. But that just means it would be better to call it Pelosi-Reid-care, which presumably is no more or less pejorative. In any event, that ship has sailed.”

Should "janjaweed" be listed in the dictionary?

In 2004, I wrote Merriam-Webster the following comment. Associate Editor, Kory L. Stamper, replied as follows.

Q: I’d like to suggest Merriam-Webster include “janjaweed” in its collegiate dictionary.

A: We only enter general vocabulary words, and at this point “janjaweed” is too specific to be entered as a general vocabulary word. Though I have run across it quite often in my reading and marking, it always refers to the government-backed Sudanese militias that are slaughtering and raping their way across Darfur. In this sense, it is like the word “Hizzbolah” or “al Qaeda”—it refers to a specific group of people acting within a specific time-frame and conflict.

Another lexicographical clue that “janjaweed” is not considered a general vocabulary term is that it is almost always glossed within the text. If “janjaweed,” like the word “Nazi,” gains an extended sense that lifts it from its very specific context, then we will consider that extended sense for entry.

How does "instantiate" differ from "reify"?

In 2004, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Emily Brewster from the editorial department replied as follows.

Q: Instantiate means “to represent (an abstraction) by a concrete instance”; heroes instantiate ideals. Reify means “to regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing.” How do the two terms differ?

A: The genus terms in the two definitions in question differ significantly; the answer to question lies in that difference.

Note the first definitions of “regard” and “represent”:

regard: to consider and appraise usually from a particular point of view

represent: to bring clearly before the mind: present

Using these definitions, we can redefine reify as “to consider and appraise (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing,” and redefine instantiate as to “bring clearly before the mind (an abstraction) by a concrete instance.”

In this way, trees at various stages of development instantiate growth, but if you reify growth, you imagine or consider it as something that can be held or touched.

How does "denotation" differ from "connotation"?

In 2004, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Assistant Editor, Daniel Brandon, replied as follows.

Q: Denotation means “the totality of things to which a term is applicable especially in logic.” Connotation means “an essential property or group of properties of a thing named by a term in logic.”

So, whereas denotation refers to a word's dictionary definition, connotation means what the word means when people use it?

A: Your analysis is essentially correct, at least enough so for casual use.

The “denotation” of a word is its intrinsic meaning; the meaning that is attached to the word itself outside of any context or environment.

The “connotation” of a word is the meaning that is layered in when the context is taken into account; it presupposes a certain commonality of experience between the user and he interpreter of the word.

Thus, while the word “war” by itself may just denote a fight between large groups of people, its use by a European author in the late 1940s was undoubtedly influenced by images of World War Two, and readers of the same era would have immediately understood this.

On a lighter subject, one example I found was that while “rabbit” and “bunny” share the same denotative meaning, “bunny” has the connotations of a pet rather than a pest. A hunting license for “bunny season” would sound rather silly.

How does "proffer" differ from "offer"?

In 2005, I asked Merriam-Webster the following question. Neil S. Serven, of the editorial department, replied as follows.

Q: Proffer means “to present for acceptance: tender, offer.” Offer means “to present for acceptance or rejection: tender,” as in “was offered a job.” What's the difference?

A: The slight discrepancy in their usage is explained in the following excerpt from the article at “offer” that appears in Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Synonyms:

“Offer,” “proffer,” “tender,” “present,” “prefer” can all mean to lay, set, or put something before another for acceptance. “Offer,” the most common of these words, frequently implies a putting before one something which may be accepted or rejected:

• There was a crown offered him: and being offered him, he put it by.

• Had he succeeded, he told me, he would have offered me the post of subeditor.

• Offer a suggestion.

• The dress department offers several new models this week.

• He offered $10,000 for the house.

• We must ask in the end what they have to offer in place of what they denounce.

“Proffer” differs from “offer” chiefly in more consistently implying a putting or setting before one something that one is at liberty to accept or reject and in usually stressing voluntariness, spontaneity, or courtesy on the part of the agent:

• Proffered his arm to a lady having difficulty crossing the street.

• Felt that it would be indelicate just then to ask for any information which Casaubon did not proffer.

• Rejected the proffered assistance of a couple of officious friends.

• The flavor of social success is delicious, though it is scorned by those to whose lips the cup has not been proffered.

In general, “proffer” emphasizes the active will and deliberation on the part of the person behind it, while “offer” is used in more casual contexts. A mechanic who offers to check your car’s oil level would probably not be “proffering” this service, since presumably he offers it to everyone as part of his job. A person who pulls over to help a stranded motorist, on the other hand, might be said to be "proffering" assistance, since it is being done out of courtesy, not obligation.

breastaurant

breastaurant [breast + restaurant]: a restaurant where the scantily clad waitresses aren't on the menu, but they're the reason the patrons keep returning

I only eat at breastaurants like Hooters, Twin Peaks and Tilted Kilt for the food.

"Breastaurants" Ring up Big Profits [Entrepreneur]

How "Breastaurants" Took Over the Casual Dining Industry [Business Insider]